by Corwin C » Fri Aug 10, 2012 12:09 am
I feel pretty safe in saying that many of the advancements in the last fifty years has been at least in some part due to efforts to explore beyond the Earth's atmosphere. Everyday things like Velcro, the transistor and later integrated circuits, digital clocks, dehydrated and freeze dried foods, digital images, satellite communication, computer networking, artificial intelligence, remote sensing, materials technology (titanium, ceramics, composites, etc.), adhesives, alternative fuels, solar panels, and even ball point pens that work upside down are direct descendants of technological breakthroughs created to solve problems that had to be conquered to explore space. Without question the world would be a very different place without the technological "envelope pushing" that is created by finding a way to do the impossible.
Personally, I'm frustrated by the lack of support that these programs have. I find it appalling that we are currently reliant upon another nation to visit a space station which was possible only by the lifting capability and the ability to bring substantial hardware back to Earth that we had with the shuttles. We need to get our act together and go back to LEO, the moon and eventually to other places. It can be done with private funding ... It should definitely be private companies, innovators, and inventors that take us into space under the coordinating influence and direction of NASA and other nations of the world. The commercialization of their advances helping to fund new projects and the continuing exploration of the universe.
The 1980 pound Curiosity was delivered to Mars by a "sky crane" maneuver where the rover was lowered on a 25 foot tether from a hovering rocket-powered decent stage. A nearly impossible feat for skilled pilots, yet this was pulled off completely by automated means. Where Mars is in it's orbit in relation to the Earth makes the travel time for a radio signal almost 14 minutes ... one way. If it had been controlled from earth, any manual input would have taken 28 minutes to see the result. It makes it impossible to "fly" the rover from here. This is the first time that this has been done other than under controlled conditions and "close to home." Just imagine the possibilities in having an artificial pilot that can take a hovering aircraft to places that are too dull, dirty, or dangerous for humans. This could lead to autopilots in commercial aircraft that can in an emergency land in any weather condition. It could lead to miniature robots that can independently search for survivors and even evaluate a survivors condition in a disaster zone. In my mind, If only one person is saved by the use of this technology it would be worth the cost ... and this is only one of the new technologies that are aboard. Each one (and there are literally hundreds) has the same potential.
Is it expensive? ... absolutely. Is it worth it? ... in my mind, without question yes, but each of you will have to decide that for yourselves. We have spent a whole lot more on other things with a whole lot less potential return on investment.
Corwin
If I am unwilling to stand up straight before the world and admit what I have accomplished during the day, without excuses, in complete and honest detail, then I can do better ...
and no one should be expected to accept anything less. -- myself
